Multimodal QUD: Inquisitive Questions from Scientific Figures

Asking inquisitive questions while reading, and looking for their answers, is an important part in human discourse comprehension, curiosity, and creative ideation, and prior work has investigated this in text-only scenarios. However, in scientific or research papers, many of the critical takeaways are conveyed through both figures and the text that analyzes them. While scientific visualizations have been used to evaluate Vision-Language Models (VLMs) capabilities, current benchmarks are limited to questions that focus simply on extracting information from them. Such questions only require lower-level reasoning, do not take into account the context in which a figure appears, and do not reflect the communicative goals the authors wish to achieve. We generate inquisitive questions that reach the depth of questions humans generate when engaging with scientific papers, conditioned on both the figure and the paper's context, and require reasoning across both modalities. To do so, we extend the linguistic theory of Questions Under Discussion (QUD) from being text-only to multimodal, where implicit questions are raised and resolved as discourse progresses. We present MQUD, a dataset of research papers in which such questions are made explicit and annotated by the original authors. We show that fine-tuning a VLM on MQUD shifts the model from generating generic low-level visual questions to content-specific grounding that requires a high-level of multimodal reasoning, yielding higher-quality, more visually grounded multimodal QUD generation.

AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot

Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.

Discourse Diversity in Multi-Turn Empathic Dialogue

Large language models (LLMs) produce responses rated as highly empathic in single-turn settings (Ayers et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2024), yet they are also known to be formulaic generators that reuse the same lexical patterns, syntactic templates, and discourse structures across tasks (Jiang et al., 2025; Shaib et al., 2024; Namuduri et al., 2025). Less attention has been paid to whether this formulaicity extends to the level of discourse moves, i.e., what a response does for the person it is addressing. This question is especially consequential for empathic dialogue, where effective support demands not just a kind response at one moment but varied strategies as a conversation unfolds (Stiles et al., 1998). Indeed, prior work shows that LLMs reuse the same tactic sequences more than human supporters in single-turn settings (Gueorguieva et al., 2026). We extend this analysis to multi-turn conversations and find that the rigidity compounds: once a tactic appears in a supporter turn, LLMs reuse it in the next at nearly double the rate of humans (0.50-0.56 vs. 0.27). This pattern holds across LLMs serving as supporters in real emotional support conversations, and is invisible to standard similarity metrics. To address this gap, we introduce MINT (Multi-turn Inter-tactic Novelty Training), the first reinforcement learning framework to optimize discourse move diversity across multi-turn empathic dialogue. The best MINT variant combines an empathy quality reward with a cross-turn tactic novelty signal, improving aggregate empathy by 25.3% over vanilla across 1.7B and 4B models while reducing cross-turn discourse move repetition by 26.3% on the 4B model, surpassing all baselines including quality-only and token-level diversity methods on both measures. These results suggest that what current models lack is not empathy itself, but the ability to vary their discourse moves across a conversation.

AI generates well-liked but templatic empathic responses

Recent research shows that greater numbers of people are turning to Large Language Models (LLMs) for emotional support, and that people rate LLM responses as more empathic than human-written responses. We suggest a reason for this success: LLMs have learned and consistently deploy a well-liked template for expressing empathy. We develop a taxonomy of 10 empathic language "tactics" that include validating someone's feelings and paraphrasing, and apply this taxonomy to characterize the language that people and LLMs produce when writing empathic responses. Across a set of 2 studies comparing a total of n = 3,265 AI-generated (by six models) and n = 1,290 human-written responses, we find that LLM responses are highly formulaic at a discourse functional level. We discovered a template -- a structured sequence of tactics -- that matches between 83--90% of LLM responses (and 60--83\% in a held out sample), and when those are matched, covers 81--92% of the response. By contrast, human-written responses are more diverse. We end with a discussion of implications for the future of AI-generated empathy.

When to Call an Apple Red: Humans Follow Introspective Rules, VLMs Don't

Understanding when Vision-Language Models (VLMs) will behave unexpectedly, whether models can reliably predict their own behavior, and if models adhere to their introspective reasoning are central challenges for trustworthy deployment. To study this, we introduce the Graded Color Attribution (GCA) dataset, a controlled benchmark designed to elicit decision rules and evaluate participant faithfulness to these rules. GCA consists of line drawings that vary pixel-level color coverage across three conditions: world-knowledge recolorings, counterfactual recolorings, and shapes with no color priors. Using GCA, both VLMs and human participants establish a threshold: the minimum percentage of pixels of a given color an object must have to receive that color label. We then compare these rules with their subsequent color attribution decisions. Our findings reveal that models systematically violate their own introspective rules. For example, GPT-5-mini violates its stated introspection rules in nearly 60\% of cases on objects with strong color priors. Human participants remain faithful to their stated rules, with any apparent violations being explained by a well-documented tendency to overestimate color coverage. In contrast, we find that VLMs are excellent estimators of color coverage, yet blatantly contradict their own reasoning in their final responses. Across all models and strategies for eliciting introspective rules, world-knowledge priors systematically degrade faithfulness in ways that do not mirror human cognition. Our findings challenge the view that VLM reasoning failures are difficulty-driven and suggest that VLM introspective self-knowledge is miscalibrated, with direct implications for high-stakes deployment.

This Treatment Works, Right? Evaluating LLM Sensitivity to Patient Question Framing in Medical QA

Patients are increasingly turning to large language models (LLMs) with medical questions that are complex and difficult to articulate clearly. However, LLMs are sensitive to prompt phrasings and can be influenced by the way questions are worded. Ideally, LLMs should respond consistently regardless of phrasing, particularly when grounded in the same underlying evidence. We investigate this through a systematic evaluation in a controlled retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setting for medical question answering (QA), where expert-selected documents are used rather than retrieved automatically. We examine two dimensions of patient query variation: question framing (positive vs. negative) and language style (technical vs. plain language). We construct a dataset of 6,614 query pairs grounded in clinical trial abstracts and evaluate response consistency across eight LLMs. Our findings show that positively- and negatively-framed pairs are significantly more likely to produce contradictory conclusions than same-framing pairs. This framing effect is further amplified in multi-turn conversations, where sustained persuasion increases inconsistency. We find no significant interaction between framing and language style. Our results demonstrate that LLM responses in medical QA can be systematically influenced through query phrasing alone, even when grounded in the same evidence, highlighting the importance of phrasing robustness as an evaluation criterion for RAG-based systems in high-stakes settings.

CREATE: Testing LLMs for Associative Creativity

A key component of creativity is associative reasoning: the ability to draw novel yet meaningful connections between concepts. We introduce CREATE, a benchmark designed to evaluate models' capacity for creative associative reasoning. CREATE requires models to generate sets of paths connecting concepts in a model's parametric knowledge. Paths should have high specificity (distinctiveness and closeness of the concept connection) and high diversity (dissimilarity from other paths), and models are scored more highly if they produce a larger set of strong, diverse paths. This task shares demands of real creativity tasks like hypothesis generation, including an extremely large search space, but enables collection of a sizable benchmark with objective answer grading. Evaluation of frontier models shows that the strongest models achieve higher creative utility than others, with the high multiplicity of answers and complexity of the search making benchmark saturation difficult to achieve. Furthermore, our results illustrate that thinking models are not always more effective on our task, even with high token budgets. Recent approaches for creative prompting give some but limited additional improvement. CREATE provides a sandbox for developing new methods to improve models' capacity for associative creativity.

Which course? Discourse! Teaching Discourse and Generation in the Era of LLMs

The field of NLP has undergone vast, continuous transformations over the past few years, sparking debates going beyond discipline boundaries. This begs important questions in education: how do we design courses that bridge sub-disciplines in this shifting landscape? This paper explores this question from the angle of discourse processing, an area with rich linguistic insights and computational models for the intentional, attentional, and coherence structure of language. Discourse is highly relevant for open-ended or long-form text generation, yet this connection is under-explored in existing undergraduate curricula. We present a new course, "Computational Discourse and Natural Language Generation". The course is collaboratively designed by a team with complementary expertise and was offered for the first time in Fall 2025 as an upper-level undergraduate course, cross-listed between Linguistics and Computer Science. Our philosophy is to deeply integrate the theoretical and empirical aspects, and create an exploratory mindset inside the classroom and in the assignments. This paper describes the course in detail and concludes with takeaways from an independent survey as well as our vision for future directions.

Faithfulness vs. Safety: Evaluating LLM Behavior Under Counterfactual Medical Evidence

In high-stakes domains like medicine, it may be generally desirable for models to faithfully adhere to the context provided. But what happens if the context does not align with model priors or safety protocols? In this paper, we investigate how LLMs behave and reason when presented with counterfactual or even adversarial medical evidence. We first construct MedCounterFact, a counterfactual medical QA dataset that requires the models to answer clinical comparison questions (i.e., judge the efficacy of certain treatments, with evidence consisting of randomized controlled trials provided as context). In MedCounterFact, real-world medical interventions within the questions and evidence are systematically replaced with four types of counterfactual stimuli, ranging from unknown words to toxic substances. Our evaluation across multiple frontier LLMs on MedCounterFact reveals that in the presence of counterfactual evidence, existing models overwhelmingly accept such "evidence" at face value even when it is dangerous or implausible, and provide confident and uncaveated answers. While it may be prudent to draw a boundary between faithfulness and safety, our findings reveal that there exists no such boundary yet.

WUGNECTIVES: Novel Entity Inferences of Language Models from Discourse Connectives

The role of world knowledge has been particularly crucial to predict the discourse connective that marks the discourse relation between two arguments, with language models (LMs) being generally successful at this task. We flip this premise in our work, and instead study the inverse problem of understanding whether discourse connectives can inform LMs about the world. To this end, we present WUGNECTIVES, a dataset of 8,880 stimuli that evaluates LMs' inferences about novel entities in contexts where connectives link the entities to particular attributes. On investigating 17 different LMs at various scales, and training regimens, we found that tuning an LM to show reasoning behavior yields noteworthy improvements on most connectives. At the same time, there was a large variation in LMs' overall performance across connective type, with all models systematically struggling on connectives that express a concessive meaning. Our findings pave the way for more nuanced investigations into the functional role of language cues as captured by LMs. We release WUGNECTIVES at https://github.com/sheffwb/wugnectives.